Florida Statute 61.505 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 61
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 61.505

61.505 Application to Indian tribes.—

(1) A child custody proceeding that pertains to an Indian child, as defined in the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. ss. 1901 et seq., is not subject to this part to the extent that it is governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act.

(2) A court of this state shall treat a tribe as if it were a state of the United States for purposes of applying ss. 61.501-61.523.

(3) A child custody determination made by a tribe under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this part must be recognized and enforced under ss. 61.524-61.540.

History.—s. 5, ch. 2002-65.

F.S. 61.505 on Google Scholar

F.S. 61.505 on Casetext

Amendments to 61.505

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 61.505

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 61.505.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 61.505

Total Results: 3

Billie v. Stier

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-04-23

Citation: 141 So. 3d 584, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 5920, 2014 WL 1613661

Snippet: Stat. (emphasis added). Additionally, Section 61.505, Florida Statutes (2012), states that a custody

Cordrey v. Cordrey

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1968-01-17

Citation: 206 So. 2d 234

Snippet: proportion. His income before taxes for 1956 was $61,505.71. "The separation agreement between the parties

Fox v. Troup Bros., Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1962-02-08

Citation: 137 So. 2d 620

Snippet: PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court which, on Dade County’s motion, dismissed the county as a defendant. The action was in tort under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The county and the defendant contractor were allegedly in possession. The trial court held that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against the county, saying: “ * * * having taken judicial knowledge of the fact that the real property involved is a part of the Palmetto By-Pass, which has been